This focuses on recent changes in Arizona eminent domain law regarding the question of whether a use be "truly public." In light of the landmark decision in Bailey v City of Mesa--often lauded as a great victory for proponents of private property rights-- a few sources will be reviewed to provide an indication of the extent redevelopment in Arizona has been affected by the decision. While the result in Bailey, precluding the City from taking the subject property may have been the correct outcome, the test to which the case now subjects any similar case involving redevelopment has made it unnecessarily difficult for political subdivisions of the state to carry out legislated redevelopment goals. The Bailey case only served to convolute the question of "public use" in the context of economic development, rather than create a workable body of law. In addition to providing a historical context and analyzing the effect of new interpretations on redevelopment generally, this paper will critique the Bailey decision in order to resolve the conflict that the decision created: that of the redevelopment goals of the state and municipalities and the authorized use of condemnation to achieve these goals with the judiciary's decision to greatly restrict the use of condemnation for the achievement of redevelopment goals. Arguably this conflict arose from a failure to fully understand the complexities of the use of the power of eminent domain for redevelopment purposes. Unaware of the need to use eminent domain in order to speed along and make possible economic redevelopment, overzealous proponents of property rights have reduced the issue to a narrow view of the state vs. the individual. Hopefully this paper can offer a more moderate and unbiased view of the use of eminent domain in light of the charge of the state and municipalities to facilitate economic growth.